MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752743833 · doi:10.1530/rep-17-0169

KH-type splicing regulatory protein is a new component of chromatoid body

2017· article· en· W2752743833 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Huijuan Zhang, Guishuan Wang, Lin Liu, Xiaolin Liang, Yu Lin, Yi-Yu Lin, Chu‐Fang Chou, Mo‐Fang Liu, He‐Feng Huang, Fei Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLady Davis Institute for Medical ResearchJewish General HospitalUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMcGill University
KeywordsRNA-binding proteinRNA splicingCell biologyBiologymicroRNASomatic cellAlternative splicingTranslation (biology)RNAMessenger RNAMolecular biologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The chromatoid body (CB) is a specific cloud-like structure in the cytoplasm of haploid spermatids. Recent findings indicate that CB is identified as a male germ cell-specific RNA storage and processing center, but its function has remained elusive for decades. In somatic cells, KH-type splicing regulatory protein (KSRP) is involved in regulating gene expression and maturation of select microRNAs (miRNAs). However, the function of KSRP in spermatogenesis remains unclear. In this study, we showed that KSRP partly localizes in CB, as a component of CB. KSRP interacts with proteins (mouse VASA homolog (MVH), polyadenylate-binding protein 1 (PABP1) and polyadenylate-binding protein 2 (PABP2)), mRNAs (Tnp2 and Odf1) and microRNAs (microRNA-182) in mouse CB. Moreover, KSRP may regulate the integrity of CB via DDX5-miRNA-182 pathway. In addition, we found abnormal expressions of CB component in testes of Ksrp-knockout mice and of patients with hypospermatogenesis. Thus, our results provide mechanistic insight into the role of KSRP in spermatogenesis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductionSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207